Pollution of our bodies by harmful chemicals – for example bisphenol A or certain phthalates – continues, and we have pervasive exposure to problematic chemicals in our homes and from products we buy and use. Even the chemicals in the packaging around our food are not properly regulated.

Environmental policies interact – for example, the creation of a truly circular economy will require stricter controls on the use of chemicals in products, to enable these products to be recycled to high value used. For example, there is a need to address the issue of bisphenol A from till receipts contaminating recycled papers, or potential contamination of recycled products by the (poorly regulated) chemicals found in the inks and glues of food packaging materials.

2)People want jobs & growth in wellbeing, not growth in GDP– and much of this needs to come from new, green, approaches, not protecting dirty vested interests.

The OECD agrees – good quality environmental regulation doesn’t damage the economy and actually helps new, cleaner business models and technologies develop. Yet business lobby groups such as Business Europe (strongly influenced by old, dirty, industry) continue to campaign against environmental regulations (e.g. on climate) – and too many politicians and policymakers still believe them.

3) Much of the science most relevant to policymaking, particularly when discussing chemicals, is uncertain and incomplete. Decision makers must therefore make decisions with available data.

Science is vitally important in all areas of environmental policy (and beyond).

However, policymakers must be aware of the limitations of science and not expect unreasonable levels of evidence. For example, many experiments are hard – or unethical – to perform. For example the impacts of a chemical exposure on the development of the human foetus may only become clear decades later.

Scientists and policymakers must weigh up the evidence that is available, and remember that both the decision to act or not to act should be informed by the available evidence. A decision not to restrict a chemical is still a decision which should be justified. The Late Lessons reports from the EEA demonstrate the costs that have been incurred due to policymakers not acting soon enough on problems.

Policy makers, not to mention activists, should also be aware that the large majority of all chemical regulatory decisions are based on a deliberately insensitive study by the party with every interest in their agent being declared safe enough to market, I do not consent to call that science, nor should anyone.
Especially as for 1 or 2 thousand chems, there are beacoup toxicity studies with sensitive-methods and higher quality science falsifying that claimed safe dose, illuminating the risks from agents we subtle-biochemistry creatures did not evolve with (those data gaps will be filled by a lot more such findings).

CHEM Trust’s work requires an in-depth and accurate analysis of the science and policy of chemicals, and the communication of this analysis to policymakers and other stakeholders.We now want to increase our capacity in this area, so we are recruiting a new Scientist to the team.Please share this job with anyone who you think might be interested!www.chemtrust.org/chemicals-policy-expert/...